ThinkingAfield.org

PORTLAND, OR – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge Karin Immergut adopted FPC’s position regarding the implementation challenges of Oregon Measure 114’s “permit-to-purchase” law and the state’s associated admission that the system would not be ready in time – and stayed its enforcement for 30 days. However, the Court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order regarding the ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The order in Fitz v. Rosenblum, along with filings in Azzopardi v. Rosenblum, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are entitled to a prompt hearing to determine whether a preliminary injunction should issue based on a more complete evidentiary record addressing whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments,” wrote Judge Immergut in her order. “The parties are ordered to confer and propose a briefing schedule to this Court by December 7, 2022.”

“FPC is cautiously optimistic that the most immediately glaring problem with Oregon Measure 114 – namely that requiring a ‘permit-to-purchase’ to acquire firearms, when no such permit application process even exists – has been acknowledged by the Court,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Nevertheless, in denying our request for a TRO regarding Measure 114’s magazine capacity restriction, the Court’s analysis leaves a lot to be desired.”

FPC is joined in this lawsuit by the Second Amendment Foundation.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important brief with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the case of California v. ATF. Initially filed in 2020 by California, Giffords, and two individuals, the case sought to force the ATF to re-define “firearms” under federal law to include numerous non-firearm items. Now, the plaintiffs are trying to ‘amend’ their lawsuit to claim that the ATF’s frame or receiver rule published this year doesn’t go far enough. FPC’s brief, along with its previous motion to intervene, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is, in reality, an entirely new lawsuit based on a new agency action taken subsequent to Plaintiffs’ filing of this lawsuit,” argues the brief. “The basis of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is Defendants’ prior implementation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which Plaintiffs sought to collaterally attack by challenging a series of classification letters issued to non-firearm producers by the [ATF]. That prior implementation of the GCA is currently defunct, and those classification letters are no longer controlling. Accordingly, Applicants in Intervention request that this Court grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint because it concerns an entirely distinct agency action and the basis for Plaintiffs’ original lawsuit is moot.”

“California and Giffords are attempting to hijack their old lawsuit designed to force the ATF to issue the frame or receiver rule to now say that the rule doesn’t go far enough,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “Plaintiffs’ argument that the ATF is required by federal law to regulate even more than it already does is nonsensical, and their attempt to disguise a new lawsuit as an ‘amendment’ to their prior case is legally infirm.” Read more

Olympian Gabby Franco fled Venezuela as that nation began to go after its peoples’ guns. She immigrated to the U.S. find freedom again. But now, here in America, she is hearing some of the same rhetoric she heard in Venezuela before they went for their citizens’ guns. Here is her perspective on our rights and what we must do to keep them.

by Franco reflects

Find this and other articles related to your right to keep and bear arms at A1F.com.